Good.

Shame

Apparently if the Act was unconstitutional as applied to a medium (as opposed to large) fraction then it would have been unconstitutional...?!?

Excellent!

AP article notes that a full 6 of the US Courts of Appeals were reversed by the decision. I hope there's some benchslapping in there.

As the opinion notes, the way elections had consequences in this case was that the country elected a president who wouldn't veto the Partial Birth Abortion Act. According to the majority's discussion, Congress tried to pass it during Clinton's administration, but he vetoed it.

Damn you and your lack of outrage, Lat!!! I KNEW you were a right-wing wacko!!!

I'm pro choice, but partial birth abortions are fucking sick.

If you're going to abort, there's no good excuse for waiting til later stages.

True: Elections have consequences, whether the party who gets the majority of the votes gets to take power (as in 2006 congressional), or not (as in 2000 presidential and, by extension, 2004).

YLS08, there are many other places on the internet where you can get your outrage. Personally I'll take my legal gossip and humor with the outrage on the side.

10:42, if that many circuit courts were reversed, it's probably a sign that the Court is making new doctrine - not that the circuit courts blithely ignored existing doctrine.

Hard to believe that six appeals courts got this wrong based on Supreme Court precedent. Or at least Supreme Court precedent as it existed before today.

At least Roberts and Alito had the decency not to sign on to Thomas's concurrence saying that Roe should be overruled. It's not much, but it's something.

Actually, pip, there are good reasons for waiting to the later stages, usually medical ones. Yes, late-term abortions are gruesome and not something anyone would want to experience. But most are performed not because a woman waited seven months to decide she didn't want a child, but because the fetus has severe disabilities and/or the mother's life is in danger. The anti-choice crowd has managed to skew this debate by portraying women who get late-term abortions as callous women who can't make up their minds. It's usually quite the opposite.

Lat -- I think it is really inappropriate that you use that picture in this context. Anti-Choice supporters have done a good job of portraying this abortion procedure in a bad light which cause some people to say it is "sick" and should be outlawed. However, ACOG has stated that sometimes the procedure is medically necessary. To those of you who applaud this decision, I am sure you will never be in the position to find yourself pregnant and unprepared. This decision is horrific and it ignores other Supreme Court precedent. You choice in pictures is inappropriate, as is your approach to this story.

10:50, my sarcasm doesn't always come through via the internets...

Where can I get the opinion? It doesn't seem to be on the SCOTUS site.

The press reports are stressing the fact that this decision the first case in which the Court ruled on "how - not whether - to perform an abortion." But are there safe alternative procedures after the 12-week mark? Does this effectively ban late-term abortions?

And are there any carve-outs from the Act? That is, does it preserve the ability to perform the procedure in instances where carrying the fetus to term could compromise/endanger the mother's health? What about instances when the mother can carry to term but the child won't survive outside the womb?

As Senatrix Barbara Boxer recently observed: "Elections have consequences."

Indeed they do. And the consequences here are, in my (and clearly the majority of Americans') opinion very, very positive.

Lat--inappropriate picture.

I'm guessing Gonzales held on to his AG position because he wanted his name on the Supreme Court's decision. Sort of like a parting gift for him on the way out.

10:57 and 10:58 -- AMEN. Totally inappropriate picture. And totally unacceptable to pretend that this is about anything other than state control over women's bodies and the doctor-patient relationship. Since when is that acceptable?

this is the best supreme court decision on abortion EVER

State control over women's bodies has always been acceptable. See e.g. the illegality of prositution; beastiality.

Great news! Let's keep going. Roll back Roe v. Wade. The unborn children are people too.

Dred Scott was on the books for far too long. Let's not make the same mistate with Roe.

Why is that picture inappropriate? Because it makes pro-abortion people uncomfortable by blurring the line between partial birth abortion and infanticide?

Embrace that picture, pro-abortion people. Own it. Have the courage of your convictions.

1. There's no such thing as a partial birth abortion

2. The ONLY late stage abortions that happen are those cases in which something has gone terribly wrong -- these abortions happen in cases where the pregnancies were WANTED, and often abortion is the only option to allow the woman another chance at a healthy pregnancy

3. Congress knew #2 but ignored it because they conducted no hearings before passing this law in 2003. Who cares about reality when you've got hungry constituents to feed

If you're against abortion, fine. But if you're against this, at least get the facts on who exactly are having the abortions.

AAAH! THAT WOMAN HAS SOMETHING GROWING INSIDE HER!!

KILL IT!!! KILL IT!!!

10:54 is right. According to AP: "Today's decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

In his concurrence to today's opinion, Justice Thomas states: "I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution."

I agree wholly with 10:57. The overwhelming majority of late term abortions are performed as a result of medical necessity for the health of the mother. A friend of mine had severe preeclampsia at 25 weeks and had to deliver immediately to avoid stroking out and dying. As it happened her fetus was viable, but if it had happened two weeks earlier access to an abortion would literally have determined her survival or death.

can't we all just agree that conservatives suck and are an aberrant blip/stain in our country's progress?

What's the case name or cite? Can't seem to find it in any article.

Anti-choice cracks me up, it's like calling pro-choice people pro-death, pure hyperbole. Anyway, no matter what you believe about whether abortions should be outlawed, any reasonable person with legal training has to know that Roe v. Wade was a fiction, and that Thomas is right that it has no Constitutional basis.

go to www.scotusblog.com for all relevant case info. Gonzales v. Carhart (05-380) and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood (05-1382) consolidated

great picture. this bans the D&X procedure right? that shit is really disgusting and clearly murder

For those that wanted the opinion it can be found at:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/05-380_All.pdf

As to the people talking about the details, I haven't given it a full read but have skimmed the bulk of the majority. The statute (at least as interpreted by the court) doesn't ban all second+ term abortions, it only bans a particular procedure (intact D&E) which is just one of a few different procedures that are used for late term abortions.

After this it seems that women can still get late-term pre-viability abortions, they just can't get them done in one particular way (intact D&E aka "partial birth").

Hopefully, this is the first step towards throwing Roe v. Wade on the ash heap with Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu.

Hopefully, this is the first step towards making ours a society in which being pro-abortion is viewed in the same shameful category as being pro-slavery.

The decision isn't that far reaching. Pro-choice crowd - don't get so freaked out about it. The Partial Birth Abortion Act only banned one type of procedure - called D&X, that is considered particularly inhumane and similar to infanticide. It is even rarely used. There were many prominent abortion specialists that came out in support of the ban because they said the abortion type was only used by incompetent doctors. Carhart, for example, is a real creep.

Congress passed the ban nearly unanimously, including a huge majority of Democrats.

The major reason the decision came down the way it did is because there is an absolute alternative to D&X in every case - D&E, which is much more "humane." The court does leave the door open for as-applied constitutional challenges, while this was a on it face constitutional challenge.

This tells us nothing about where abortion rights will go in the future. I seriously doubt Casey will be overruled anytime in the near future; its application may be somewhat modified, but don't forget that it was written in part by Kennedy.

The problem with this decision is that it gives the opportunity for people like Loyala 2L to exist.

I feel like a lot of us tolerate the right-wing garbage on this site because when Lat's good, he's sharp and funny and has interesting things to say about the legal profession and the practice of law.

But I've had enough. I'm done. I look forward to reading again when the Dealbreaker folks pass the reins to someone who isn't intent on using this site as a platform to break into conservative punditry.

Why is it more important to the right wing to protect the unborn baby than the already living mother? Is this some original sin thing?

In his concurrence to today's opinion, Justice Thomas states: "I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution."

================

The organ grinds and the little man in the funny costume dances. I love this play.

What's so "right-wing" about this post? It's a big blockquote from an AP story, plus some links to SCOTUSblog and the slip opinion.

Liberals think that anyone who doesn't agree with them wholeheartedly is a right-wing nut job.

Bye-bye, 11:31. Take your humorless and embittered self somewhere else.

here, here, anon 11:31. i agree. lat's below-the-surface political biases reveal themselves in cheap and facile ways that make this site less pleasurable to peruse. lat makes half-assed claims of neutrality, which only belie his absolute lack of it in nearly everything he does on here.

I think judge Posner neatly summed up the situation in his dissent in Hope Clinic v. Ryan. "

Imagine a married woman, pregnant, told by her physician that her life depends on her obtaining an abortion. He tells her it would be better from the standpoint of minimizing the risk to her of medical complications [**72] from the abortion for her to have a D & X. But, he adds, unfortunately the law prohibits the procedure. It does so not because the procedure kills the fetus, not because it risks worse complications for the woman than alternative procedures would do, not because it is a crueler or more painful or more disgusting method of terminating a pregnancy, but because the state wishes to make a statement of opposition to constitutional doctrine.

A legislature may be taken to intend any consequences [*882] of its handiwork that are at once natural, highly probable, and wholly foreseeable (and foreseen). Here the intent is to block a woman from seeking an abortion when her doctor advises her that the best procedure for her is criminal."

That is exactly what is going on here. The Partial Birth Abortion Act is a symbolic statement of opposition to abortion. Such statements should not be made at the expense of the concrete needs of individual women.

I am with 11:31. I usually love ATL, but this coverage has completely turned me off.

A Big Question About Clarence Thomas

By Douglas T. Kendall

Thursday, October 14, 2004; Page A31

A little-noticed bombshell was dropped by Justice Antonin Scalia in a recently released biography of Justice Clarence Thomas. It poses an interesting dilemma for President Bush this election season, in that it raises the question of whether he should continue to cite Thomas as one of his model Supreme Court justices.

The evidence, of course, suggests that a repudiation of Thomas by the president is extremely unlikely. Indeed, Ken Foskett, the author of "Judging Thomas: The Life and Times of Clarence Thomas," claims that top Bush administration officials have discussed with Thomas the possibility of his succeeding William Rehnquist as chief justice.

But Scalia's pointed comments to Foskett complicate Bush's support for Thomas considerably. Specifically, Scalia told Foskett that Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." Clarifying his remark, Scalia added that "if a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let's get it right. I wouldn't do that."

Stare decisis is a fancy Latin term that stands for a bedrock proposition of U.S. law: that the Supreme Court will uphold precedent and not disturb settled law without special justification. As Justice Thurgood Marshall explained for the court in 1986, stare decisis is the "means by which we ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion."

Four years ago, Rehnquist echoed Marshall in a case that reaffirmed the Miranda warning given before police interrogations, stating that stare decisis "carries such persuasive force that we have always required a departure from precedent to be supported by some 'special justification.' "

Stare decisis is not and should not be an ironclad rule -- otherwise Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld segregation, would still be on the books. But almost everyone agrees that respect for the doctrine is indispensable for a Supreme Court justice. As Thomas himself explained at his confirmation hearing, "stare decisis provides continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our process of case-by-case decision making, I think it is a very important and critical concept."

It is unlikely that any nominee of any president would be confirmed to the Supreme Court if he or she admitted to a disbelief in the doctrine of established case law. Court watchers know that Scalia's statement about Thomas goes to the heart of a jurisprudential chasm that separates the court's two most conservative justices. Scalia is fiercely conservative, but by and large he judges within the parameters of the rules laid down by predecessors. Thomas rarely appears to feel so confined.

The proof is in 35 lone Thomas opinions that express a willingness to reexamine a breathtaking range of well-settled constitutional law. A little-known but telling example is a 1998 opinion by Thomas that expresses a willingness to reexamine the court's opinion in Calder v. Bull, which decided that the Constitution's prohibition against retroactive punishments applies only to criminal (not civil) laws. Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the case, it is a unanimous 1798 opinion by the court that has not been seriously challenged in more than 200 years. It is the dictionary definition of established case law.

Far better known is Thomas's concurrence in United States v. Lopez, where, alone among the justices, he expressed a willingness to reexamine fundamental aspects of the court's jurisprudence under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This clause -- granting Congress the authority to regulate commerce "among the several states" -- is the principal power used by the federal government to protect civil rights, worker safety and the environment. Thomas's views, if adopted by the court, would call into question fundamental statutes in all these areas. As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted in a separate opinion, "the Court as an institution and the legal system as a whole have an immense stake in the stability of our Commerce Clause jurisprudence as it has evolved to this point. Stare decisis operates with great force in counseling us not to call in question the essential principles now in place respecting the congressional power to regulate transactions of a commercial nature."

Reading a Thomas opinion can feel like hitting 100 mph on a deserted highway: thrilling (or terrifying, depending on your perspective) but still a bad idea. The excitement of approaching every constitutional question anew comes at the cost of a stab to our constitutional tradition. No president should accept this trade-off.

The writer is executive director of Community Rights Counsel, a public interest law firm.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

It bears repeating: Elections have consequences.

I can remember in 2000 the most strident of my progressive/liberal friends claiming that principle demanded that they vote for Nader, all of whom dismissed my objections that doing so could risk giving the presidency over to a born-again simpleton who would fill the Court (and courts) with uber conservatives; roll back all of the environmental progress of the 90's; and turn our then surplus into a deficit, ensuring both future shortfalls and tax hikes.

In late 2003/early 2004 I can recall warning similar (though not quite as crazed) types of the risks of supporting Dean, as doing so would steal early funding and thunder from Kerry and would force Kerry to move his comments to the left throughout the primaries (making for an endless supply of "flip-flop" soundbites). Again, these people allowed their deranged hatred of Bush to throw caution - and the fate of the Court - to the wind.

Let's cut out the PC slogans. What is pro-choice? You are pro-abortion? There is no choice. You don't have to choose to stay pregnant, biology takes care of that for you. You have to choose to kill the child. The other side isn't "anti-choice," they're anti-abortion.

As a side rant - I'll bet dollars to donuts that the pro-abortion posters also think that the "radical right" is full of ignorant fools for ignoring current scientific advances and refusing to allow stem cell research.

Why is there a disconnect with this logic when it comes to abortion. Science says, contrary to, again, slogans, that very early on the child is a child, not a fetus or mass of cells. Children as early as 10 weeks have the ability to feel pain, etc.

I'll support stem cell research if you recognize science. can't have it both ways.

I'm sorry, I don't see it. Can someone point to some actual text in the post that shows right-wing bias?

The Barbara Boxer quote is descriptive - the pendulum swings left, the pendulum swings right - rather than normative.

As for the photo, it is what it is. People who support partial birth abortion shouldn't be troubled by it. Are they troubled by random pro-life protestors standing outside clinics with pictures of aborted fetuses in the trash?

Fo those of you who would like a liberal slant, please feel free to read the New York Times.

"lat's below-the-surface political biases"

Good job captain obvious. Lat, the ex-O'Scannlain clerk, guest speaker at the Federalist Society this week, refers to Judge Reinhardt as "Emperor Palpatine," etc.

Did you discover the biases below the surface through hard work and sleuthing, or do you have a sixth sense that none of the rest of us have?

AFAIK, Lat's generally conservative, but is more interested in writing a funny tabloid chronicling the falls from grace of whoever happens to be falling from grace at any given time than in eradicating abortion. I find that he's equally merciless in posting on stupid liberals as he is in posting on stupid conservatives.

If you don't like it, go somewhere else. It's not as if ATL is the only game in town, and it's not as if ATL was Dealbreaker's idea and they happened to hire Lat to run it.

anon 11 45

Another example of why liberals are idiots....

This is anon 11:31 again:

"Liberals think that anyone who doesn't agree with them wholeheartedly is a right-wing nut job."

No. I'm cool reading smart conservatives, but I don't need flippant nutjobbery here. I'm sick of it. It's a failure to understand the site or care about appealing to a general audience. Kind of like if Monday Night Football announcers abruptly stopped commenting on the game and started arguing about substantive due process or Darfur.

Sorry to be "humorless," but partial birth abortion isn't exactly a laugh riot for either side.

Logic, you'll support stem cell research "if" pro-choice people "recognize science"?

1) Your support is conditional and, therefore, you don't actually support stem cell research.

or

2) Your conditional offer ignores the fact that there already are people who are anti-abortion AND pro-stem cell research.

Now, how could anyone harbor the thought that the radical right is full of "ignorant fools"?

Fo those of you who would like a liberal slant, please feel free to read the New York Times.

anon 11 45

Another example of why liberals are idiots....

Come on! I am strongly against late-term abortions, but NOT if forbidding one will severely damage a mother's health. She should at least have the right to make the choice to destroy her own health and possibly eliminate her chance to raise any children she might already have.

Come on! I am strongly against late-term abortions, but NOT if forbidding one will severely damage a mother's health. She should at least have the right to make the choice to destroy her own health and possibly eliminate her chance to raise any children she might already have.

11:53 - it's called sarcasm. Obviously you are wholly unfamiliar with sarcasm. You must than be sincere when you say that no one can harbor the thought that the radical right is full of ignorant fools.

I disagree, but you're entitled to your uninformed opinions.

this is getting ridiculous. i think the level of contention over this should only serve to remind us that our parents and grandparents severely f******* up the public policy of reproductive rights in this country. much has been written over this [the adjudication of fundamental abortion rights issues in the adversarial and divisive legal arena as opposed to the legislative one and attendant polarization], but it really is instructive to see how western europe and other similarly situated countries have dealt with this issue, with the result being much less polarization, divisiveness and rancor.

nice job.

Wait... Lat is a gay republican? I thought those were an urban myth, like black members of the Klan and Jewish Nazis. How can you support a party that goes out of its way to explicitly express its contempt for you in its official platform every four years?

I guess that explains why this place is so incoherent: we love "divas," but we hate law firms that mis-treat associates, but we love biglaw firms and wouldn't give others the time of day, but we hate biglaw firms because they're mean to poor innocent Charney because he's gay, but we like the Republican party because it's mean to gays, but we hate S&C because it has lots of gay partners but a gay associate says it's full of divas but we love divas but.... Hey, did you hear who's getting married?

Anyway, now I understand why this place never makes any sense.

Wasn't this same law (albeit in Nebraska) found unconstitutional by the Court in Stenberg? I guess changing O'Connor for Alito is already having far-reaching effects.

"The major reason the decision came down the way it did is because there is an absolute alternative to D&X in every case - D&E, which is much more "humane." The court does leave the door open for as-applied constitutional challenges, while this was a on it face constitutional challenge."

Wrong! The alternative to the banned procedure is dismembering the fetus INSIDE the woman's uterus and taking it out piece by piece. That's hardly more humane by any standard (symbolic otherwise) and that's what makes the law irrational. It's not going to stop any abortions -- it's just going to change the way they're done for aesthetic reasons, in a way that puts women potentially at risk.

I'm still not getting how this can be interpreted as a "right wing" post. I saw the picture as a tongue-in-cheek joke on pro-lifers who will go to such silly extremes as to put together such a inciting photo.

WHY is the picture inappropriate?

WHY is the picture inappropriate? it's part of the commentary

Another disturbing aspect of the ban is that it interferes with the extremely personal grieving process of a mother of a WANTED fetus she has to abort (for her own health or because of fetal defect). Many of those mothers choose to use the intact procedure in order to be able to hold the baby and say goodbye afterwards.

I realize that this is statistically a small segment of late-term abortions (most are, in fact, elective and not for health reasons), but it nevertheless shows the incredible invasion of privacy and liberty constituted by the law. It's akin to the state telling you you're not allowed to have an open-casket funeral.

Another disturbing aspect of the ban is that it interferes with the extremely personal grieving process of a mother of a WANTED fetus she has to abort (for her own health or because of fetal defect). Many of those mothers choose to use the intact procedure in order to be able to hold the baby and say goodbye afterwards.

I realize that this is statistically a small segment of late-term abortions (most are, in fact, elective and not for health reasons), but it nevertheless shows the incredible invasion of privacy and liberty constituted by the law. It's akin to the state telling you you're not allowed to have an open-casket funeral.

12:14 / addled: HILARIOUS. (But that said, I don't think people visit ATL for its ideological rigor.)

I like how Ginsburg considers "abortion doctor" a pejorative term, when it is descriptively accurate for the plaintiffs in the case.

That picture is offensive.

The picture is objectively cool. But it's inappropriate because it appears to be a viable fetus and a healthy mother, which IS NOT THE ISSUE in this case. Abortion on viable fetuses is already restricted under Roe. The procedure banned in this case is used on nonviable fetuses, or on "viable" fetuses with severe defects, or (in theory) on viable fetuses threatening the health of the woman. I'm not sure it's even ever used in this latter category.

12:55 - Offensive? An offensive picture would be one of you screwing your neighbor's cat. How on earth can a picture of an apparently very pregnant woman be offensive????

Viable now equals 21 weeks, 6 days, post-conception.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2888874&page=1

word*star at 01:04 PM is the last word on the question of the picture, except "inappropriate" should be changed to "deliberately misleading."

How is it offensive? If you're all for ripping the baby apart late term, then why would you be offended? This is the liking sausage but not wanting to see it made line of reason.

If it offends you, maybe you should question your position.

"Viable now equals 21 weeks, 6 days, post-conception."

WRONG! Viability is individually determined in each case. There is no hard-and-fast line. That's why the Roe division into trimesters is acknowledged to reflect a legal rather than medical standard.

1:12 - A lot has changed since you went to medical school.

Roe - that was 30+ years ago. Some things in science have advanced since that time.

I guess under your argument the best way to cure headaches is to drill a hole in the skull to let the demons escape.

1:12 - Even the most liberal professors at my Tier 1 law school admit/concede that Roe hardly reflected a "legal" standard.

1:15: You have completely misunderstood me. The point is that legal viability and medical viability are two different things. Legal viability (under Roe) is an arbitrary line drawn, informed by science but only an approximation when applied to particular cases. Medical viability can only be determined on a case by case basis with respect to an individual fetus and the available life support technology. Here is what the British Medical Association has to say:

"Although it is helpful to pinpoint a particular gestational age as being the point of viability, it is important also to bear in mind that gestational age is not the only factor that affects the possibility of a fetus being considered viable (however that is defined). Factors such as birth weight, whether it is a multiple pregnancy and the gender of the fetus also affect the likely outcome. Even if a fetus reaches a gestational age which is considered the minimum possible for viability, many others factors come into play as to whether that particular fetus is or may be viable. Another relevant factor to consider in discussing viability therefore is whether 'fetal viability' relates to the minimum stage possible for any fetus to survive or, for example, the stage at which the majority of infants will survive. Defining the gestational age of “fetal viability”, therefore, is by no means straightforward."

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/AbortionTimeLimits~Factors~viability

1:12 - A lot has changed since you went to medical school.

conservatives and pro-lifers are retards and hicks

"Even the most liberal professors at my Tier 1 law school admit/concede that Roe hardly reflected a "legal" standard. "

Sigh. I mean an objective "legal" rule of neutral application to all cases, as opposed to an medical judgment about an individual case.

If there were a law declaring "No abortions after viabilty, defined as 21 weeks of gestation," then 21 weeks would be a determination of legal viability, not medical viability. The law would not magically make all 21 week fetuses viable in real life!

The point is, just because one fetus has survived at 21 weeks does not necessarily mean that "viability" under the law is 21 weeks for every fetus.

You're right 1:25. We want to protect babies and execute murderers. You want to kill babies and save murderers. But we're the retards and hicks?

Here's something that is sure to cheer you up: We're retards and hicks, but smart enough to "steal" the 2000 and 2004 elections. Could even beat a bunch of slack-jawed yocals. So, what does that make you? Hmm, what's dumber and less competent than a retard (Kerry, Gore, etc.)

You're relying on the Brits as your source for medical knowledge? Good job. Socialized medicine is always cutting edge. I really on them for my dentistry knowledge.

You're relying on the Brits as your source for medical knowledge? Good job. Socialized medicine is always cutting edge. I rely on them for my dentistry knowledge.

wait, someone explain to me, does this ruling really apply to everyone or just the hicks in Jesusland?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/New_map_WEB.jpg

1:31 - so does that mean that the abortion providers at planned parenthood are checking to see if each individual fetus 22, 23, or 24 weeks is viable before they start the D&E or D&X?

I didn't think so.

What's ridiculous is that Lat is being accused by leftists of having posted a "political" post because he didn't take a leftist position. Put another way, because he didn't show outrage or decry the opinion, his post was "political," even though he also did not show any support for the opinion. Apparently, if you're not overtly with them, you're against them.

News flash: Lat's post is apolitical. He did not opine about the opinion; he neither described the decision as good or bad, but simply reported that the decision had happened. He then made a purely objective observation that the votes by Alito and Roberts might confirm what people suspect/hope for/fear (choose your own adventure) about a shift in the Court.

Some will probably suggest that the choice of picture was political. I think that argument goes about as far as I can throw it, because I agree with 11:12, but I'll concede it has more merit than asserting that Lat's words were in any way political.

RBG has it right. This decision doesn't save a single fetus's life. If a doc can't do an abortion this way, she'll do it another way. Because these types are only done when medically necessary anyway, and no doc who performed abortions previously is going to refuse to perform an abortion when her patient's life or health are at risk. So this decision doesn't save fetuses. It only deprives doctors of a procedure that might be less risky to the woman.

By the way, how can Kennedy say that this statute is constitutional under the Commerce Clause after Lopez? And in case you think I'm agreeing with that idiot Thomas, why does Thomas insist on citing his own poorly-reasoned dissents in every concurrence or dissent he ever writes? ("The court is wrong because I said so.")

Are you people blind and stupid? Look at the picture again. It's of a woman's pregnant belly who is probably in her third trimester (any med students / people with real experience here to verify?), with the outline of fetus's foot. It can be inferred that the fetus is viable. Repeating what previous posters have already said, THIS EXAMPLE IS NOT WHAT IS AT ISSUE HERE, in the gonzales v. carhart case, or with the whole controversy regarding intact D&E generally. Lat's EDITORIAL decision to place this photograph here is disingenuous and is definitely not "apolitical". To call it "apolitical" is to deny the similar EDITORIAL [read: subjective] visual tactics used by the pro-life/anti-abortion in the abortion wars. It's fine that Lat is injecting some sort of editorial comment; this IS his website, remember? Just call a spade a spade (or a fetus not-at-issue a fetus).

The picture is ridiculous. I'm fine with people opposing abortion generally and/or partial birth abortions. But this picture makes it look as if those of us with a different view are supporting the killing of kicking full-term children.

This procedure is used where a woman's medical needs require extraordinary care. This picture completely distorts that fact. Really, Lat ought to just come out and say what he thinks on the subject rather than PRETEND to be neutral while using a picture like that. At least then it would be clear that he buys into right-wing propoganda -- at lesat to the extent that it isn't against people with his sexual orientation. That, of course, IS inappropriate.

Why are all of the people on the left resorting to name calling? Are you so devoid of a solid argument that you have to use insulting slurs? I thought you held yourselves up as the intellectual elite. You're certainly not coming off that way.

I have no time or patience for the asinine arguments of my intellectual inferiors, therefore I find it much more efficient to resort to name-calling, you sorry, dimwitted, bible-thumping hick.

Another victory for authoritarian central gov't!

Don't worry people, I'm sure the federal government and our health care industry will come up with various programs to support the families who will ultimately be affected by these bans and provide financial, medical, social assistance to the children who are born with devestating physical handicaps and families of the mothers who die or become handicapped as a result of the inability to perform this procedure.

Oh wait....

2:42: That's not very nice. Do you blow your mother with that mouth?

The age of viability is somewhere around week 23 (although the youngest baby to ever survive was an IVF baby born at 21 weeks 6 days). However, viability has nothing to do with movement, including visible movement (yes, you can actually see a baby moving inside a pregnant woman) - movement starts early in the first trimester.

Instead, viability is the point where there is ANY chance of survival outside the womb.

The reality of abortion is that it does in fact kill living babies - and when talking about second trimester abortions, those babies are recognizable as human.

Needless to say I am STRONGLY against abortions after week 12, unless they are:
(1) to save the mother's life or
(2) fetuses that have ZERO chance of survival - for example, trisomy 18, anancephaly, Potters Syndrome.

To the posters denying reality...... Fetuses are babies.

I have been pregnant before, twice in fact. I had a first trimester ultrasound with my first baby at 11 weeks, 5 days. At that time I could have had an abortion, if I was so inclined, in any state in the union. A regular, garden variety abortion.

In that ultrasound, I saw a tiny baby with arms waving and legs kicking and moving. I could not yet feel the movements, but there was no question that the baby was alive.

To the posters denying reality...11 week old fetuses have no thoughts, feelings, or emotions other than those imputed to them by their mothers.

This was a hot topic in my supreme court class. I and one other female in the class opposed the precedent set forth in Stenberg and wrote that ban was in fact constitutional. Also those of you saying nasty things about Lat because he didn't start foaming at the mouth about our nation going to hell need to get a grip. He didn't even post his opinion. Respect others' opinions.

This was a hot topic in my supreme court class. I and one other female in the class opposed the precedent set forth in Stenberg and wrote the ban was in fact constitutional. Also those of you saying nasty things about Lat because he didn't start foaming at the mouth about our nation going to hell need to get a grip. He didn't even post his opinion. Respect others' opinions.

This was a hot topic in my supreme court class. I and one other female in the class opposed the precedent set forth in Stenberg and wrote the ban was in fact constitutional. Also those of you saying nasty things about Lat because he didn't start foaming at the mouth about our nation going to hell need to get a grip. He didn't even post his opinion. Respect others' opinions and stop crying. When Obama is president he'll appoint some more liberal justices for you.

"Needless to say I am STRONGLY against abortions after week 12, unless they are:
(1) to save the mother's life or
(2) fetuses that have ZERO chance of survival - for example, trisomy 18, anancephaly, Potters Syndrome."

This view doesn't make much sense to me. What is it that happens at 12 weeks that's so special? Is it just that it happens to look more like a baby then? So it's just an aesthetic thing? Does that make any sense as a way to make law?

Also, would you refuse a woman an abortion at 14 weeks if she needed it to prevent serious disability (like the Polish woman who was blinded when she was refused an abortion) or, say, the pregnancy only posed a 10% risk of death?

"why does Thomas insist on citing his own poorly-reasoned dissents in every concurrence or dissent he ever writes? ("The court is wrong because I said so.")"

Because the Court *is* wrong, and because he *did* say so, and those dissents is where he said it.

Not that hard to figure out.

There is nothing "poor" about the reasoning that non-commercial activity within the boundaries of a state is not regulable by Congress. In fact it's rather elementary. Odd that it has eluded so many for so long.

How many Polish women does it take to get an abortion?

Thomas supporter - Thomas is a dimwitted nincompoop and everyone knows it. Get over it and move on.

Everyone - I guess the Thomas supporter knows it too, and doesn't realize it. Thomas supporter, why didn't you know that?

Clarence Thomas raped me. Seriously.

"This view doesn't make much sense to me. What is it that happens at 12 weeks that's so special? Is it just that it happens to look more like a baby then? So it's just an aesthetic thing? Does that make any sense as a way to make law?"

Week 12 is the end of the first trimester. After week 12, there is a less than 1% chance of pregnancy loss. Prior to week 9 or 10, the baby isn't called a fetus - it's an embryo and it's survival is more precarious.

Prior to week 4, there is a 50/50 chance the pregnancy will proceed

At week 6, there is a 60% chance of survival

Once a heartbeat of 120 is seen after week 8, there is only a 10% chance that the pregnancy will be lost.

2:58,

Assuming for the sake of argument that a fetus is indeed a person, does not necessitate a conclusion that abortion should be legally wrong.

I am not *legally* required to loan someone a kidney just because they are dying. Even if my child were dying, I would not be required to loan them my kidney. (Immoral - maybe, illegal - no).

As a society we have taken the philosophical position, that a person is not entitled to things just because they require them to survive, particularly when those things require another person to do or act in some way that may cause them harm or even discomfort.

Why then do you take the position that a fetus is LEGALLY ENTITLED to stay inside a mother's womb?

Morally you have an argument. Legally, I think you're on shaky ground.

"Why then do you take the position that a fetus is LEGALLY ENTITLED to stay inside a mother's womb?"

Reliance interest. Having fucked, the mother is estopped from aborting.

3:26

Pregnancy and organ donation are not comparable.

With respect to organ donation, your ommission (i.e. your failure to donate an organ) only allows a natural process to continue/result - death.

With respect to abortion, my failure to have an abortion results in life - in the 2nd trimester, it is almost certain that the pregnancy will result in a live birth (99.9% certain). Only by intervening do I cause death.

3:26

Pregnancy and organ donation are not comparable.

With respect to organ donation, your ommission (i.e. your failure to donate an organ) only allows a natural process to continue/result - death.

With respect to abortion, my failure to have an abortion results in life - in the 2nd trimester, it is almost certain that the pregnancy will result in a live birth (99.9% certain). Only by intervening do I cause death.

clarence thomas also once peed in my closet while very drunk.

I'm pro-life, and I think that picture is creepy--it's a gossip site, for Pete's sake. Can you find another graphic, David?

any cunt who reasons that "if I get pregnant I can always just get an abortion" should be shot

I'm pro choice, but it's evil to think ahead of time of abortion as an optin

"I'm pro-life, and I think that picture is creepy--it's a gossip site, for Pete's sake. Can you find another graphic, David?"

What do you suggest? Shots from www.gapmaternity.com? LOL!

Why is it creepy? While I suspect that it is a doctored photo, reality is reality - pregnant bellies not only look cute, there is something even cuter on the insude. ;)

I'm pro-life, and I think that picture is creepy--it's a gossip site, for Pete's sake. Can you find another graphic, David?

clarence thomas wants to ban beards.

3:33,

Unfortunately, your commission/omission distinction also fails. Second (somewhat famous) hypothetical:

Say that a newborn's kidneys are not fully developed and that a 24/7 connection between a father and child must go on for 9 months, until the child's kidneys develop "naturally" on their own. So let's say that the father consents to being hooked up to the child initially. But that after 2 weeks, a month, 5 months, the father wants to have the tubes removed. Maybe he's tired all the time, maybe his back hurts from carrying the child around. Maybe he's got a job offer that the arrangement would interfere with. The father has the LEGAL RIGHT to remove his tubes at any time, even though the child will die as a result. Even though the child will eventually be healthy if he continues the connection. He would not be required by law to continue that connection.

Clarence Thomas was responsible for faking the moon landing.

any cunt who reasons that "if I get pregnant I can always just get an abortion" should be shot

I'm pro choice, but it's evil to think ahead of time of abortion as an optin

Posted by: pip | April 18, 2007 03:43 PM
==========

Save me Joe Louis.

clarence thomas rarely bathes.

Clarence Thomas owns a rare photo of Normal Rockwell beating a child.

"Say that a newborn's kidneys are not fully developed and that a 24/7 connection between a father and child must go on for 9 months, until the child's kidneys develop "naturally" on their own. So let's say that the father consents to being hooked up to the child initially. But that after 2 weeks, a month, 5 months, the father wants to have the tubes removed. Maybe he's tired all the time, maybe his back hurts from carrying the child around. Maybe he's got a job offer that the arrangement would interfere with. The father has the LEGAL RIGHT to remove his tubes at any time, even though the child will die as a result. Even though the child will eventually be healthy if he continues the connection. He would not be required by law to continue that connection."

In your hypothetical, the natural process is death. The father, in that case, is refusing to CONTINUE an unnatural medical treatment. That is no different than refusing surgery or consenting to donate an organ, but changing one's mind.

In contrast, the natural state in pregnancy is to remain pregnant. The act of abortion interrupts the process of creating life.

Even though the father has the ability to save the child's life, he is not obligated to because nature created a child with a condition that would result in that child's death.

clarence thomas has promised to purchase jesse helms' collection of "little shoes" after the senator's death.

KFU, your hypo, famous or not, is retarded. Are we in a world where such kidney disorders happen as a direct result of the father's free choice to have sex, and where he knew that it was possible that this would happen as a result of that choice, and where hundreds of thousands of people would face that same choice every year, and thus many thousands of newborns would die if the choice to unhook the tubes were permitted?

When Clarence Thomas fought Rocky Marciano he was 112 years old.

Clarence Thomas has invented a device that now makes time travel possible.

Clarence Thomas set Thích Quảng Đức ablaze.

4:08,

So what if we rather than aborting a fetus performed a early C-section and allowed the fetus to die of "natural" causes? Would that satisfy your arbitrary natural vs. unnatural distinction?

4:12,

The hypothetical was not addressing that particular issue. I'm sorry you can't read well enough to determine that fact on your own. If you'd like to legal require a woman to carry a child to term because it's her fault she got preggers, then consider the ramifications of that position. You would wind up limiting all sorts of activities women engage in that may or may not cause harm to the fetus. After all there are nearly as many miscarriages as there are abortions in this country. Why not just keep women at home?

Clarence Thomas was behind Hurricane Katrina

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 18, 2007
Filed at 4:09 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wednesday's Supreme Court action upheld a ban on a form of abortion denounced by opponents as ''partial birth abortion.''

While the procedure is intended for abortions after 21 weeks of gestation, abortion rights groups argue that the ban is so broad that it will prevent other procedures done earlier. They also contend it is often the safest procedure for a women.

But opponents of the method say that because it is done late in pregnancy it can amount to infanticide.

The procedure is formally known as dilation and extraction and is also referred to as late term abortion, D&X or Intact D&X. It involves dilating the cervix and removing the fetus.

Common side effects for most women include nausea, bleeding and cramping which may occur for two weeks following the procedure.

Possible alternatives include dilation and evacuation, a procedure usually used between 15 and 21 weeks of gestation; labor-induction abortion or, rarely, a procedure described as like a mini-caesarian.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, of 1.3 million abortions in 2000, the most recent data available, 2,200 involved this procedure.

More Articles in National »

"So what if we rather than aborting a fetus performed a early C-section and allowed the fetus to die of "natural" causes? Would that satisfy your arbitrary natural vs. unnatural distinction?"

(1) C-sections are hardly natural :) If a c-section is performed or labor induced for the sole purpose of killing a healthy fetus (which I define as a fetus that will almost certainly result in a live birth and not afflicted with genetic anomalies that will result in death at birth or shortly thereafter)/allowing that fetus to die, then that is no different from D&X.

Nature intends for healthy pregnancies to result in healthy deliveries. Affirmatively acting to arrest that process through artificial induction of labor or a c-section ends life.

(2) D&X is tantamount to murder. It is used on near-viable and viable fetuses. The baby is turned breach and murdered when the head is about to enter the birth canal. How is that different from giving birth and smashing the baby's head several minutes later, once it has drawn its first breath (babies after 19 or 20 weeks will draw breath, even if not viable)?

Illegal abortions are the fifth leading cause of death to women in Mexico.

"The hypothetical was not addressing that particular issue. I'm sorry you can't read well enough to determine that fact on your own. If you'd like to legal require a woman to carry a child to term because it's her fault she got preggers, then consider the ramifications of that position. You would wind up limiting all sorts of activities women engage in that may or may not cause harm to the fetus. After all there are nearly as many miscarriages as there are abortions in this country. Why not just keep women at home?"

Miscarriage rarely results from a woman's activity. Miscarriage is due either to chromosomal anomaly (vast majority of cases) or to hormonal imbalance. It is pure fiction that shock or jumping on a trampoline will cause a miscarriage. Pregnant women can typically continue normal activities (and there is little proof that bedrest does anything to prolong pregnancy) unless there are signs of threatened miscarriage.

KFU, I know the hypo didn't address that issue, thats my point. We're not talking about an isolated freak case where the rules only affect one life. Also, you state: "If you'd like to legal require a woman to carry a child to term because it's her fault she got preggers, then consider the ramifications of that position."

Is this really such a ridiculous idea to you? Don't we legally require men, even boys, to support a child for 21 years because they have to take responsibility for their actions? Its not that its her fault, its that its her responsibility. Big difference.

And you can easily have a rule forbidding purposeful elimination of the fetus without a rule regulating all activites that "may" harm the fetus. Sorry you can't see the distinction.

Make sure you read the description of D&X in the opinion itself. It is SICK. The doctor's testimony describes seeking the kicking legs emerge from the women, then sucking the brains out and watching those little legs go limp. Oh, and the fetus was 26.5 weeks - CLEARLY VIABLE.

This is not a procedure designed to eliminate some cells.

And did you read the alternative? That involves dismembering the little baby and taking it out of its mother peice by peice.

Anyone that can do this is INHUMAN and IMMORAL. The person that can do that is no different that the man in Michigan who dismembered his wife and sprinkled her body in the woods.

4:40 - The #1 cause - exploding pinatas.

This is a bad law. Regardless of one's stand on if and when abortion is morally acceptable, the state now gets to decide how doctors can or can't practice medicine, based entirely on the political views of those temporarily in power.

I find that terrifying.

To all the happy anti-abortion/pro-life folks, what if twenty years down the road, the state decides it doesn't want to pay those big Medicare/Medicaid bills for old boomers, and starts legislating what kinds of end-of-life procedures doctors can and can't perform? Full-coding a 98 year old with multiple chronic conditions is pretty gruesome and messy, too, and rarely is helpful. Maybe some cost-strapped state will decide to put some limits on what gets done there- there's a strong "death with dignity" movement prepared to push for legislation similar to what they've done in Oregon. Maybe in 20 years, the death with diginity folks'll be advocating as effectively as the pro-life folks.

In the present, how about some *more* legislation about what kinds of drugs or surgical procedures are or aren't available for the seriously ill?

Or legislating what vaccines people must have? Texas is already giving that a try.

This is potentially about a lot more than abortion, and I find it irritating that so many conservatives consider this a "victory." If Hillary gets elected, I suspect you all are not going to be quite so pleased with the precedent of congress passing and a president signing bills about what kinds of medical care we get to have, or don't get to have, in this country.

I am very, very disturbed by the lack of an exception for the mother's health - it is a jurisprudential first that we should all take extremely seriously.

Listen, nobody's getting a late-term abortion for fun. It's a pretty uncomfortable procedure to go through at an early stage - I can't even imagine a later stage. Surely, the vast majority of late-term abortions are for a reason that implicates either the mother's life or some serious problem with the fetus that would necessitate such a drastic procedure.

I'm reminded of Wanda Sykes's bit about the female friends getting abortions on a lark and turning to each other and saying "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"

"Why not just keep women at home?"

KFU, make no mistake, that's what a LOT of these people want to do.

Re the picture, I love it. In the same way I love horror films. It looks like it could be a poster for the next Alien movie.

Since y'all are so dead set that if something appears to move and breathe and live, well, hell, it's gotta be human, I fully expect that when the aliens come and start implanting butt-babies into men, you'll all feel exactly the same way. Mens gots to carry the fetus-people too! That means we get to judge them when they have a sip of wine or a nibble of prosciutto or a piece of sushi or a hot dog or if they take a bath or drink coffee or go for a jog or drive a car or have rough sex. And then, after nine months of living under the public eye, losing their figure, and feeling like a hundred-pound elevant lives in their abdomen, they get to push the thing out through their assholes and they have to tell everyone it's a beautiful, wonderful experience.

Yay men! Aren't you all excited? If you don't want the aliens implanting the BABIES in you, you better just watch your slutty little selves and stay inside!!

Anyone that can do this is INHUMAN and IMMORAL. The person that can do that is no different that the man in Michigan who dismembered his wife and sprinkled her body in the woods.

Yeah, 4:56. Because a squirmy little thing that vaguely looks human is JUST AS VALUABLE as a full grown woman.

Which is really what all your bullshit comments boil down to.

Calling it a "baby" doesn't make it a human person. These women are human people. They live in and contribute to society just as much as you do (probably more). These parasites growing inside them don't get to trump their rights. If you think they do, YOU'RE inhuman and immoral.

You're fucking monsters, in fact.

Clarence Thomas impregnated me with a butt-baby.

"Anyone that can do this is INHUMAN and IMMORAL. The person that can do that is no different that the man in Michigan who dismembered his wife and sprinkled her body in the woods.

Yeah, 4:56. Because a squirmy little thing that vaguely looks human is JUST AS VALUABLE as a full grown woman.

Which is really what all your bullshit comments boil down to.

Calling it a "baby" doesn't make it a human person. These women are human people. They live in and contribute to society just as much as you do (probably more). These parasites growing inside them don't get to trump their rights. If you think they do, YOU'RE inhuman and immoral.

You're fucking monsters, in fact."

This is the stuff you always wonder if pro-choice activitists are thinking but are generally too savvy to verbalize. "parasites"?! amazing.

7:59, lol. You've never heard that before?

Aww, how cute. You must think everyone in the world considers a non-sentient micro-organism to be a bayyyyybeeee. Sorry to have to introduce you to science and all.

"To the posters denying reality...11 week old fetuses have no thoughts, feelings, or emotions other than those imputed to them by their mothers.

Posted by: word@star | April 18, 2007 03:06 PM"

wordstar,
I don't think that 24-week premature babies or even full-term newborns have thoughts, feelings, or emotions. In fact, there might be a question as to whether you yourself have any thoughts, feelings, or emotions tonight while you're sleeping... but I don't think it's right for someone to kill you in your sleep without you realizing it.

"7:59, lol. You've never heard that before?
Aww, how cute. You must think everyone in the world considers a non-sentient micro-organism to be a bayyyyybeeee. Sorry to have to introduce you to science and all.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 08:49 PM"

We're not talking about non-sentient micro-organisms. We're talking about 26-week entities which can feel pain. We're talking about entities which are MORE developed than 24-week old premature babies surviving out of the womb. How does it make sense to end the life of a 26-week entity, but not a 24-week entity, with the only distinction between the two (besides age) being how far the doctor pulled the entity down the birth canal?

7:59, I am a conservative who has very little respect for anti-life folks, but I doubt that 7:04 is real. While many leftists have all sorts of disgusting views, if the "parasite" label is not enough, the comparison with a man who bucthered his wife kind of reveals that the guy is probably a moderate or conservative trying to (successfully) make leftists look like idiots.

Of course every single commenter here starts with the assumption (like every good leftist/atheist/environmentalist/abortionist/feminist etc.) that the soul does not exist. Because evidently, if men did have a soul, there would be no argument in the world why abortion could possibly be permissible, even one second after fertilization.

I personally don't mind the most extreme leftists who think that abortion is legitimate because these views are no more damaging than their worship of economic irresponsibility, deviant behavior and pro-terrorist government policies.

even if the soul does exist, we kill all the time (or we have others kill in our name)

there are plenty of good arguments for killing souled beings--like, they're evil souled beings

and 10:06, why don't you take it all the way and grant animals souls? because a fucking holy book told you so??

chimps show more sophistication than retarded adults

Jeepers!

That photo is a pretty obvious fake, although even Snopes.com hasn't been able to confirm whether or not it's real.

Too bad the real issue was lost in the debate - whether the U.S. Congress has (or should have) the power to regulate abortion. I'm pro-choice, but I also believe that state governments and their voters are best equipped to decide for themselves whether various abortion procedures should be legal. The fact that South Dakota voters rejected that state's anti-abortion law is a pretty good example of this.

The only reason the Feds got involved with partial-birth abortion was so Congress and the President could both score some quick and cheap political posturing points, on both sides of the issue. That ain't right.

Oh sweetie, it's so cute how you're afraid of all 130 pounds of little old me.

Yes, I'm real. I believe in souls and everything, too. I'm a Christian and I go to church (and even tithe! Do you greedy conservatives give ten percent to the church?). And I think fetuses are in some sense parasites.

Is your mind BLOWN yet?? Hope you don't have nightmares!!

Just tug on your handy little penises to remind you everything's okay. It's what you know. Hell, find a woman to masturbate in. That's what we're good for in your tiny little conservative worlds -- masturbating men and incubating future chilluns!

And don't worry. I don't have any respect for you either. I don't have any respect for ANYONE who would value the life of some human-looking little baby-type thing over a living, breathing, REAL LIVE fully grown human adult woman. But then, we're not "real" people to you anti-choicers.

Hey 7:04, you were a fetus once.

12:38, sure was. Also used to be prepubescent. Also used to be a virgin.

Also used to be a knee-jerk conservative. And all of those things changed when I grew up.

Wow -- I never thought I would say that about any "American", but I think that I have more in common with fundamentalist Muslim theocrats than I have with you.

Wow.

What I find most striking in this debate is the MANY similarities between the thought and rhetoric of abortionists and of the NAZIS.

Both dehumanize one class of people. Both use words like "parasite" to refer to those they hate. Both generally mock Christianity but are also willing to masquerade as Christians to the extent that it can help them get recruits. Both support a form of genocide. Both make use of the courts and the MEDIA to advance their agenda. Neither group tolerates any opposition to their extreme views. It thus is not surprising that Hitler had no moral problem with abortion whatsoever.

What I find most striking is how the NAZIS also used irrelevant comparisons to prove their illogical POINTS. Thus, it is not surprising that 1:24 supports Hitler.

What I find most striking is how the NAZIS also used irrelevant comparisons to prove their illogical POINTS. Thus, it is not surprising that 1:24 supports Hitler.

I'm sorry, I mean HITLER.

Well, I wouldn't go around bragging about my similarities to suspected terrorists, but hey, whatever floats your boat. I'm not here to judge.

I love how the best argument the anti-choicers have is that I'm Hitler.

Aw, shucks, you got me. I am. I'm Hitler. Resurrected and all that jazz.

LMAO

As for masquerading as a Christian, doesn't the Bible say that only God knows our hearts? I am a Christian. Doesn't particularly matter if you believe me, but isn't it kind of un-Christian to purport to know whether or not I'm saved?

Also, I'd like to point out that I never personally attacked anyone here. I said something a little outrageous (on purpose) that scared a couple people and then the attacks came out. One sign of a weak argument is a resort to ad hominem attacks.

Oh yes, and I'm hairy and fat and no man would ever love me, yadda yadda yadda.

1:24, you're an idiot. Hitler forced abortion on Poles, Jews, etc., but it was a capital crime in Germany after 1943.

Anyone interested in the pro-abortion agenda in the Nazi party should check this out: http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id15.html

"What I find most striking in this debate is the MANY similarities between the thought and rhetoric of abortionists and of the NAZIS."

Oh, my God, you are fucking crazy.

For the record, I'm 7.5 months pregnant and still think of the little bugger as a parasitic fetus. I don't think this is dehumanizing, I think it's true - otherwise, why does everybody frigging glare at me when I have a cup of coffee (another rant for another day)? This is a 100% wanted pregnancy, too.

"For the record, I'm 7.5 months pregnant and still think of the little bugger as a parasitic fetus."

Word. I'd venture that most of the people who think that the swooning loveliness of pregnancy and the mother-child bond is somehow relevant to this debate have ever experienced pregnancy and childbirth upclose. It's not pretty, folks. It's a major health event that causes extraordinary strain on a woman's entire body, making many of them quite unhappy no matter how much they want the baby.

10:18 and word*star, nice to see some sane faces show up :)

Another thing that irks me, related to what you two have noted -- the pro-life crowd demeans the VERY REAL and EXTREMELY HIGH sacrifices women make by going through a pregnancy and giving birth. Carrying a child for nine months and forcing a baby through your vagina is one of the most selfless acts a person can perform on this earth. When someone has no choice but to do something, it kind of takes away from its moral importance. Nice how y'all would like to rob women of the hard-earned kudos/karmic points/whatever they deserve after going through the hell of pregnancy.

I can't think of anything your average man does that comes close to being this selfless and giving. Certainly can't think of anything the law forces him to do.

"I'd venture that most of the people who think that the swooning loveliness of pregnancy and the mother-child bond is somehow relevant to this debate have ever experienced pregnancy and childbirth upclose. It's not pretty, folks. It's a major health event that causes extraordinary strain on a woman's entire body, making many of them quite unhappy no matter how much they want the baby."

I've carried two pregnancies to term and cannot imagine how anyone could treat a fetus as anything BUT an unborn child or a baby.

If a woman does not want to get pregnant she should be careful with her birth control or not have sex. Everyone knows that sex makes babies.

"If a woman does not want to get pregnant she should be careful with her birth control or not have sex."

This is what it really boils down to, isn't it? It isn't REALLY about the life of the fetus. It's about punishing women for having the audacity to have sex.

If you make this argument, you are in some sense against female sexual self-expression. This is sexist bullshit.

10:46

We say the same thing to men who don't want to pay child support - if a man doesn't want to support a child, don't have sex or use condoms. How is that different to say to a woman that if she does not want to "endure" pregnancy and childbirth, she should not have sex?

I am female. I am a mother. I have a daughter. I am pro-life - the only issue I am conservative on - because I believe that the pro-choice movement is founded on a lie. Justice Ginsberg herself embodied that lie when she chastized Justice Kennedy for describing the fetus as an unborn child and a baby. People, a fetus is a baby.

How is smashing a babies skull and sucking out its brains at the cusp of birth or ripping the baby into peices any different than the actions of the teenage mother who drowned her seconds old neworn in a toilet?

10:46--what about laws requiring men to support their unwanted offspring? Are these laws about punishing men for having sex? No, they are about forcing people to take responsibility for their actions. Thinking that women should not be able to abort does not equate to thinking that they should be punished for having sex. Granted, some people who are pro-life may feel that way, but its absurd to claim that any pro-life person hates women and their sexuality. Completely absurd.

10:52 - Whether a fetus is a "baby" is a matter of belief, not something to be dictated by the state. A fetus is only a baby if the mother wants it to become one because it has no existance separate from the mother. All of its rights and moral status are bestowed by the mother and her desires about whether the potential independent life is going to become an actual independent life. The state has no right to interfere in that decision, one way or another.

The whole "she had the dirty sex and now must accept the consequences" argument is baseless. In this context, pregnancy is most akin to an illness caused by a legal act (sex). We don't refuse treatment to people whose other illnesses are cause by their legal acts.

Likewise, the argument about men and child support is inapposite. Men are not required to pay child support to fetuses. That duty only arises after birth.

11:23

- A fetus is a baby as a matter of fact, not belief. Medical professionals in common parlance refer to fetuses as babies. I have yet to meet the OB who refers to a pregnant woman's baby as a fetus to the mother's face. Further, OBs themselves cosider themselves to have two patients, not one.

- Pregnancy is not an illness. Pregnancy is a natural state arising from the sexual act that results in the creation of human life. The only "treatment" a normal pregnancy may require is prenatal care, and even that is arguable. Referring to the pregnant woman as ill/delicate/requiring constant care is anti-feminist and oppressive. The female body is designed for pregnancy and birth (not solely those thigns, of course) and many women find the experience empowering.

- Pregnancy is not a punishment or a lifetime sentence. It lasts only 9 months and if the woman still does not want to be a mother after the 9 months are over, she can pursue adoption.

- Pregnancy is less burdensome, arguably, than child support. Pregnancy lasts for only 9 months and the mother is not required to raise the child. In contrast, child support is an obligation that lasts for 18 years.

I am somewhat in the middle in this debate, which I guess is pretty rare. But if you really think that pregnancy is an illness, that a fetus is a parasite, etc, then I think you're deluding yourselves. This issue, and the decision whether to abort, is very serious and very consequential. I think it does an incredible disservice to young women to pretend otherwise, and to claim that an abortion is like removing an unwanted growth. Even though, ultimately, I think this decision has to be left up to the individual woman, it still disgusts me how people try to reduce what is, at least, a potential human life to the level of a bug that you squish under your foot.

"I think it does an incredible disservice to young women to pretend otherwise, and to claim that an abortion is like removing an unwanted growth."

Fooling yourself, this is 11:32 here. You are absolutely right. On a personal note, the experience of pregnancy has made me pro-life.

Prior to pregnancy, I was pro-choice through the first trimester. The experience of pregnancy has made me uncomfortable even with the earliest abortions because creating life and seeing life in an ultrasound as early as 6 weeks and watching and feeling that life develop and grow inside me and ultimately emerge from my body made me realize that the pro-chocie movement is founded on a lie. When I see the grainy ultrasound picture from when I was 6 weeks pregnant, I don't see a nameless bundle of cells. I see the beginnings of the person who manages to weasel her way into my bed every morning, the person who loves to read and color, the person who calls me Mommy.

"Baby" is a rhetorical term. It's not a legal term. It's not relevant to legal discussion except as atmospherics.

But since you insist, I'll follow through. Is a zygote is a baby, over 50% of which naturally never implant? Before week one (when twin division happens), is it one baby or two babies? At week three, when the embryo is a whopping 1/8 of an inch long, is it a baby? At week five, when it has a tail and looks like an alien and is a whole 1/2 inch long and has no brain stem, is it a baby? At week 7, when it starts to maybe start to resemble something human, but weighs less than an asprin tablet, is that a baby? From 12-23 weeks when the fetus's cortex has still not sulcated but is instead smooth, is that a baby?

If it was conceived by rape, is that a baby? How about incest?

word*star, a baby is a baby is a baby.

An embryo, yes even an embryo, is not some amoeba. An amoeba or a blade of grass or an apple will never be a human. However, an embryo's is the smallest human.

Yes, 50% of zygotes don't implant. 25% of confirmed pregnancies result in miscarriage. When a woman miscarries, she doesn't say that she "lost her zygote" or her "embryo died." She says that she lost the baby or the baby died. She mourns her loss, not because she "knew" that baby in the same way I know my child. Rather she mourns the loss of the embryo's promise - the promise to become a baby then a child.

Mode of conception is inapposite. Many living breathing people were conceived by rape and incest. Are they not human beings? Shall we have laws that if you stab a person and it turns out that the person was conceived in rape, it is no longer murder?

"I am somewhat in the middle in this debate, which I guess is pretty rare. But if you really think that pregnancy is an illness, that a fetus is a parasite, etc, then I think you're deluding yourselves."

That's a point well taken. I think the problem is that we reason by analogy (this being law), and that those analogies (by definition) do not 100% match the reality. Pro-choicers by and large do not truly believe that a fetus is a parasite. When we're not arguing from a legal perspective, most feminists/pro-choicers will be the first to acknowledge that abortion can be a very difficult, very solemn, and morally ambiguous choice to make for women.

11:44: "On a personal note, the experience of pregnancy has made me pro-life."

I hope you can distinguish between your personal beliefs and experiences of your wanted pregnancy and the reality of others own experiences and beliefs about their unwanted pregnancies.

Just because you believe something does not mean that belief is true for others. Read what you just wrote -- at six weeks, you saw something that was not yet your daughter calling you Mommy, but you gave it a a name, your own hopes and dreams for the daughter you knew it would become.

A woman who does not want a child looks at the same blurry picture of a six week fetus and does not see the same thing that you did. She does not give it a name. She does not have hopes for its future.

If as you argue emotions make a fetus into a "baby," then, clearly, a woman who wants an abortion does not have a "baby" inside her.

Ok, 12:02, so now we know your whole position. You don't merely object to gruesome late term abortions that were banned yesterday. You want to ban the morning after pill birth control pills, and IUDs (since those methods all might stop implantation.) You want to ban abortions even early in the first trimester, with no exception for rape or incest or where the mother will be given a serious disability. I assume you'd give a health exception, but who knows.

Nothing else to say here.

Time to man the barricades, girls.

"When a woman miscarries, she doesn't say that she "lost her zygote" or her "embryo died." She says that she lost the baby or the baby died. She mourns her loss, not because she "knew" that baby in the same way I know my child. Rather she mourns the loss of the embryo's promise - the promise to become a baby then a child."

Really? When a "woman" miscarries?

Well gee. I guess I'll go tell my friend who was RELIEVED when she had a spontaneous abortion (that is the technical term, btw -- it's still an abortion, even if it's your body rather than a doc inducing it), that she's not a woman. She never called it a "baby."

Because everyone knows that REAL women are "built" to be mothers, and as soon as we've got a squirmy collection of cells sucking the energy and life out of us from the inside, we'll fall in love with the gooey bundle and call it a "baby." Anyone heartless enough not to get all atwitter at the thought of pregnancy is no better than cattle. Well, any woman, anyway. Because it's unmanly to coo over babies, much less fat bellies.

"The female body is designed for pregnancy and birth (not solely those thigns, of course) and many women find the experience empowering"

Because what could be more empowering than being refused service at a restaurant when you order a glass of wine, because the waiter thinks you look preggers? (Actually happened to one of my friends whose DOCTOR recommended a glass of wine to calm her nerves while she was knocked up)

Woo hoo empowerment!

"All of its rights and moral status are bestowed by the mother and her desires about whether the potential independent life is going to become an actual independent life. "

Absurd. I've got rights as a human being because I am a human being, not because my mother said "I give rights to you."

The viable 26-week premature baby has rights because it is a human being. That's why it's illegal to kill it. The law says that it is murder. It doesn't matter what the mother thinks of the premature baby; it is still a human being.

The 28-week old fetus happens to also be a living thing with human DNA that could live outside the womb. It doesn't matter what the mother thinks of the fetus... that doesn't change what type of thing the fetus is, namely a human being.

"If as you argue emotions make a fetus into a "baby," then, clearly, a woman who wants an abortion does not have a "baby" inside her."

No, it is not emotions that make a fetus a baby. It is a FACT that a blurry ultrasound will become a human person if the pregnancy is allowed to continue its natural course (assuming miscarriage does not occur). Any woman who thinks that a six week embryo (fetus is not used until 10 weeks) is KIDDING HERSELF and buying into the lies of the pro chocie movement.

1:07 - The "pro choice lies" argument is really ridiculous. Of course a woman going for an abortion knows that the embryo or fetus would become a baby. That's why she's getting an abortion.

Could you please stop with the bits about drinking wine, coffee, etc? I really don't get why this matters. Yes, I see why its a bit annoying, but we're talking about something much, much more serious than whether a little wine will hurt a developing baby/fetus/whatever. I truly hate these kinds of arguments, the "you just want to control me" bullshit. I don't. Really, I swear. But I do think that you should be a little less cavalier about such an important topic.

Wordstar--so are you saying that the same woman could abort a fetus at, say, 10 weeks, and then a few years later, when she wants to be pregnant, at 10 weeks she'll have a baby inside her because the emotions are different? This happens all the time, I'm sure, where women who have previously aborted then get pregnant later and look at the ultrasounds, call it their baby, etc. This is something I never hear about--how do people reconcile these 2 things? This goes for guys too, those who have paid for/supported abortions in the past. Do people struggle with this? I'm honestly curious.

"The viable 26-week premature baby has rights because it is a human being."

Can you say the same thing about a zygote? About a 1/4 in fetus with no discernable human features? Go ahead, say it. You want birth control pills to be banned because they might cause zygote death. This isn't about 26-week old fetuses. They're just a red herring.

word*star

12:02 and 1:07 here. The lie is that you can somehow separate the embryo from the baby. The lie is denying the very fact that abortion stops a life. The lie is the fact that an embryo is not indistinguishable from a bit of bacteria or a growth on one's arm.

The truth is that an embryo=fetus=baby=human - the embryo is part of the trajectory of forming human life and stopping that trajectory is murder.

No, I do not object to the morning after pill or IUDs or birth control pills. First of all, those methods of birth control all act prior to implantation, prior to the point in time where any pregnancy occurs. Second, the vast majority of conceptions do not implant anyway. I have seen the figure to be 70%. Thus, prior to implantation, at least to me, there is no viable pregnancy. I am also less troubled by abortions prior to the beginning of the heartbeat - before a heartbeat is visible, a viable pregnany may not exist. Once there is a heartbeat, however, there is a viable pregnancy that has an excellent chance of reaching term.

I suppose that line may be arbitrary to you. And I suppose it is, in a way (although certainly no more arbitrary than relying on which side of the cervix the head happens to constitute a "valuable life"). However, I recognize that the MAP, IUDs, BCPs are all necessary to prevent abortions.

I also would not rule out abortion in the case of rape or incest. While I do think life begins at conception, I also recognize that there are some circumstances where a pregnancy and childbirth may be emotionally scarring for the mother. However, that is not the case with garden variety abortions, where the mother willingly had sex.

To 12:41, so your whole argument that pregnancy and childbirth cannot be empowering is the fact that you can't drink in public? I agree that our society is excessively paternalistic towards the pregnant woman. Those views of pregnancy and birth (the mother is weak, birth is dangerous etc. stem from patriarchal and antiquated views of the delicacy of women). However, there are many other elements of the process that are empowering - I suggest you read in to natural childbirth and critiques of the OB system. It is very enlightening.

"This isn't about 26-week old fetuses."

wordstar,
You're dodging the point, and bringing up the zygote because that is a difficult situation. Yes, this is about 26-week old fetuses. Look at the post. We're arguing about "partial birth abortions" which involve 26-week old fetuses, not zygotes.

"Wordstar--so are you saying that the same woman could abort a fetus at, say, 10 weeks, and then a few years later, when she wants to be pregnant, at 10 weeks she'll have a baby inside her because the emotions are different?"

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying! And given the large number of women who do have abortions (1 in 3), many must go on to have wanted babies who they regard very differently than the unwanted fetuses. They probably have exactly the experience you describe - dread at thinking about their unwanted 10 week fetus; delight in thinking about their 10 week wanted baby.

I don't mean that the fetus gets magically transformed into something called a "baby" because the mother wants it. What I mean is that the embryo or fetus (up to a certain point) gets its rights via the mother's desires for it. That's why I am pro-choice, but I also think fetal homicide laws are ok. In essence, I believe that the fetus is only a potential person, but that the mother's intention that it BECOME a person turns into a "baby" (meaning, it has full human rights).

A corrolary to this is that I think a fetus that is going to become a person (ie, the mother has no plans for an abortion) has rights independent of the mother. So a pregnant woman who abuses drugs, etc, could be criminally prosecuted and stopped from drug abuse, just as she would be if she abused a child. In that sense, I'm probably not in line with most of my feminist sisters!

1:22.

If you argue that an embryo is a life. And you have a drink or a cigarette or speed on the interstate while you are pregnant, does that mean that you should be thrown in jail for reckless endangerment or contributing to the delinquency of a minor? Because if an embryo has the rights of a person, then they must have ALL the rights of a person, and your rights cease when they start to infringe on the rights of the embryo. Technically, if the embryo, fetus, whatever has all of the rights of a person, you are guilty of false imprisonment simply by being pregnant. Think about it ...

"In essence, I believe that the fetus is only a potential person, but that the mother's intention that it BECOME a person turns into a "baby" (meaning, it has full human rights)."

Wordstar, I think you've been fairly reasonable up until now, but that argument is nuts. Putting aside many other problems with this theory, it leaves open the very real possibility that the mom will want the baby, making it a person, but later decide, for whatever reason including financial issues, break-up of her relationship, potential health problems with the baby, etc, to abort. So at that point it magically transforms back into merely a potential life?

"It is a FACT that a blurry ultrasound will become a human person if the pregnancy is allowed to continue its natural course (assuming miscarriage does not occur)."

Um, no, that's not a "fact." It's a possibility.

It happens ONLY IF:

(1) The mother lives to term.
(2) The mother keeps herself sufficiently healthy such that her body can provide life support to her and the being sucking the life out of her. And yes, that IS what it does, and it is every bit as parasitic as, say, the neighbor who constantly comes over and mooches your beer (moreso, in fact, because you can always just buy more beer for a couple bucks. It's WAY harder to keep your energy up when something/someone else is constantly STEALING it).
(3) There are no complications over which the mother has no control.

As to the person blowing aside concerns about drinking coffee and wine, I call bullshit again. If a fetus is a "human life," then every action a pregnant woman takes affects another human's life. If the fetus has the same rights as any other person, then the mother doesn't get to take any action that could hurt a fetus. That means drinking wine or coffee whenever she wants. That means eating her favorite foods. That means exercising or dieting. That means her smoking habit. Where do we draw the line? Okay, she doesn't get to kill the "baby" in order to prevent permanent changes to her body (and yeah, they are PERMANENT. This is not, nine months and then, whoop! Back to normal forever! This is, nine months, and then I get to do months of Kegels to get my vagina CLOSE to its original size, months of exercise and dieting to get me CLOSE to my pre-baby weight, plastic surgery to get my boobs CLOSE to their pre-baby shape and size, tummy tucks to get my waist CLOSE to its pre-baby circumference -- and stretch marks that will never, ever, EVER go away. Not to mention the possibility of post-partum depression and other mental disorders often brought on by pregnancy). So how much control DOES she get over her body? Everything she DOES affects the fetus. Is it okay to do anything UP TO the point of killing it? Halfway? None of the way? Where do we draw the line and why?

PROVE to me you're not trying to control women's bodies. Don't just say it with empty words. PROVE IT.

WILL EVERYONE PLEASE SHUT THE HELL UP?

so annoying....

It's not just their bodies you would have to control, it's a pregnant woman's entire behavior. I mean, epidurals can potentially harm a child. In fact so can forcips (if you've ever seen a delivery). So, when a woman gets pregnant, we'll just strap her to a bed, not let her move for 9 months, feed her through tubes and use her body only as an incubate her, and when the baby is ready to come out, we'll cut the baby out of the mother and throw the mother away. What do you say ladies, still think that zygote is a "person?"

"If a fetus is a "human life," then every action a pregnant woman takes affects another human's life. If the fetus has the same rights as any other person, then the mother doesn't get to take any action that could hurt a fetus."

This is so ridiculous it makes me angry. First of all, a fetus does not have to be declared a full human life in order to outlaw abortion. No matter how hard you try to pretend, outlawing abortion will not lead to laws that regulate the beverage consumption habits of women. Its ridiculous.

Second, there is a huge difference between purposely killing a fetus, and doing something that may have some adverse affect on it. You're so concerned about drawing lines, how about this one: no killing the baby on purpose. But drink whatever you think is ok. Happy?

Anyway, I don't need to PROVE anything to you. I am not in favor of outlawing abortion across the board, by the way. I am, however, in favor of people taking it seriously and acknowledging what is really involved. I think worrying that someone might get mad that you're drinking wine cheapens the discussion.

Finally, I think you should re-read your post and think about whether your mother cared about any of those things once you were born. Also, go talk to someone who was adopted, see what they think about your opinion of pregnancy.

this completely reminds me of what i witness every day when i walk past union square and see the messy melange of protesters, students, idiots, and others arguing with each other about some topic (about which they are no expert) at the top of their lungs. fortunately, they, and this, renew my faith in the legal system and its ability to resolve disputes. unfortunately, they, and this, also serve to renew my opinion that most people in this country are complete idiots.

1:50 - I fully support your plan. Guys, get laid, the country stays populated, and no bitching from annoying moms.

Bravo! You've solved the problem.

The idea that an embryo or fetus is a baby only if the mother thinks it is is ridiculous!!!! It is kind of like saying the red car is only red if I say it is, but if I say it is blue, that's fine too because it is just my opinion.

The difficulty for you, word*star, is that it is a FACT that an embryo will become a fetus, which will become a baby/newborn which will become a child which will become an adult. Yes, things can happen to halt that progression - the mother can be killed in an accident, the baby can die from SIDS. However, that does not erase the fact that untampered with, there is a natural process and a natural progression here.

Recognizing this does not translate into control of women. It means respecting human life and not trivializing abortion and being honest with the fact that abortion DOES kill.

I also think your parade of horribles, 1:41, is overstated. All anti-abortion legislation does, in general, is forbid women from killing their unborn children. Similarly, child abuse legislation prevents parents from beating their children, molesting them etc. However, like abortion laws do not require pregnant women to be perfect, child abuse laws do not require parents to be perfect either. Just as I can feed my kid McDonald's regularly, smoke around my kids, allow my kids to watch TV constantly and otherwise exhibit poor parenting, as long as my kids are reasonably clean and not physically or sexually abused, the state lets me do as I please. Similarly, a pregnant women can have a few drinks, drink some coffee, eat twinkies and sodium laden chinese food, smoke a few ciggies etc. Forbidding abortion does not translate into turning the government into the pregnancy police and women into nothing more than childbearing vessels.

And as for boobs and stretch marks, I have news for you, whether you have babies or not, the girls are likely going to droop. You're still at risk for developing incontinence and heck, if you gain wait like most Americans do, you won't have washboard abs at 40 either. Nor are you guarnateed that "awful fate." Plenty of women do not get stretch marks etc.

Go do something else, nobody has a gun to your head. Dick.

"Second, there is a huge difference between purposely killing a fetus, and doing something that may have some adverse affect on it. You're so concerned about drawing lines, how about this one: no killing the baby on purpose. But drink whatever you think is ok. Happy?"

BRAVO!!!!!! Very well said! Conflating laws prohibiting killing a baby (in this case, a viable fetus) and social stigma from drinking a latte or a glass of red wine is ridiculous.

"The idea that an embryo or fetus is a baby only if the mother thinks it is is ridiculous!!!! It is kind of like saying the red car is only red if I say it is, but if I say it is blue, that's fine too because it is just my opinion."

I don't want to use analogies because I think they've done nothing but obscure things in the abortion debate. A woman can have a zygote or embryo she regards as not-a-baby (if she aborts intentionally, or miscarries, or her birth control causes it not to implant.) That same woman, when she's trying to get pregnant later, will regard the same "clump of cells" very differently. My point is that it is the mother's intentions and desires that differentiate between the two, and that the law should recognize this distinction.

But if you believe every zygote is a baby, that's a faith-based decision. You have a right to decide yourself on what you think the truth is, based on your values and emotions, but you don't have the right to force others to believe that truth. Saying "a zygote is a baby" does not make it so for everyone, even if you personally believe it's true. The majority of women resolutely do not believe that a zygote or an embryo is a baby.

"But if you believe every zygote is a baby, that's a faith-based decision. You have a right to decide yourself on what you think the truth is, based on your values and emotions, but you don't have the right to force others to believe that truth. Saying "a zygote is a baby" does not make it so for everyone, even if you personally believe it's true. The majority of women resolutely do not believe that a zygote or an embryo is a baby."

Really? The majority of women don't think of an embryo as a baby? I'd be interested to find the source of that fascinating statistic.

Now, is this the majority of women who have never been pregnant? What about the fact that half of the women who have abortions also have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, and other psychological issues stemming from the procedure?

What evidence do you have that an embryo is NOT a baby? That is not a matter of faith, it's a matter of fact that at 6 weeks an embryo has a beating heart. It is a matter of fact that you and I were embryos once upon a time. It is a matter of fact that if I snort cocaine when I am 8 weeks pregnant I can cause serious birth defects that last a lifetime. It is a matter of fact that an embryo becomes someone like you or me. If that is not evidence that an embryo is a baby, I am not sure what is!

wordstar,

The zygote is a difficult situation, because it doesn't look like a human being. But we're arguing about aborting 26-week old fetuses, fetuses that can survive outside the womb. Is that a fetus a human being only because a mother says so?

"The majority of women resolutely do not believe that a zygote or an embryo is a baby."

I think what you meant to say was:

"The majority of women that I know resolutely do not believe that a zygote or an embryo is a baby. In addition, women who think differently are ill-informed/stupid/comfortable with being controlled by men. They would feel differently if they were educated/freed from the chains that bind their tiny minds."

"This is so ridiculous it makes me angry. First of all, a fetus does not have to be declared a full human life in order to outlaw abortion. No matter how hard you try to pretend, outlawing abortion will not lead to laws that regulate the beverage consumption habits of women. Its ridiculous."

Oh, YOU'RE mad, are you?

Tell me, are you a woman? Do you have ANY RIGHTS at stake in this debate or are you just randomly getting angry because I disagree with you? Because I am a woman, and this issue DIRECTLY AFFECTS MY RIGHTS. So I have a pretty FUCKING GOOD REASON TO BE ANGRY. WHAT IS YOUR REASON???

Stop living in a fantasy world. There are people out there who want to control women's bodies. There are people out there opposed to a CANCER VACCINE because oh noes if women get it THEY MIGHT HAVE TEH SEX! WAKE UP AND LOOK AT THE WORLD YOU ARE LIVING IN.

Maybe YOU don't want to control women. Well, that's great, good for you. But the people who do have THEIR guy in office. You want to be willfully ignorant, FINE. But don't inflict your ignorance on others by DENYING US OUR RIGHTS.

"Maybe YOU don't want to control women. Well, that's great, good for you. But the people who do have THEIR guy in office. You want to be willfully ignorant, FINE. But don't inflict your ignorance on others by DENYING US OUR RIGHTS."

I don't think this issue is about control of women. It is about the protection of human life, no different from other laws designed to protect human life (murder law, laws prohibiting drunk driving etc.)

I am a woman. I have been pregnant. I have never had an abortion (would never consider it). I have two friends who have done it. One regrets it, one doesn't (bad relationship). Am I still their friend? Yes - in fact, they do not know that I am pro-life. But neither friend denies that the embryo was a baby. Saying that there is no baby there - no matter what your belief is - minimizes the psychological consequences of the decision to abort.

I don't see why a law forbidding doctors from sucking the brains out of a half born viable fetus should make you mad.

"What evidence do you have that an embryo is NOT a baby?"

Please. Will you go back and read everything I've posted? The whole point is that there is no objective category of "baby." You can't scientifically prove that something is a "baby." It has its own human DNA, sure. What status it derives from that is the question.

Anon at 2:22 - I know we've gotten afield from Carhart, but there's no doubt where this is all headed - to banning early term abortions and birth control pills. But a post-viability fetus defintely has a different status in my analysis because there's no potential involved - it can be independent. I do believe that parents have the right to humanely abort severely defective post-viability fetuses.

I don't have it all thought out, though, because I still think in some cases the woman's health and life should be valued above even the viable, healthy fetus. For example, if my sister runs into trouble giving birth, damn straight I want her health to come first.

The really difficult question for me is late-term, previability abortions for reasons other than health or fetal defects. I'm not sure if my objections to those are purely aesthetic (which would be unjustifiable) or something more. But I do know that most of those happen because the woman is living a severely disordered life - abuse, drug addiction, extremely young. I have a hard time seeing how the greater good is served by making her have the baby.

1:58 - Go back to Autoadmit, asshole.

"I am, however, in favor of people taking it seriously and acknowledging what is really involved. I think worrying that someone might get mad that you're drinking wine cheapens the discussion."

Also, this is a borderline asshole remark and your comments about my mother are a non sequitur and rude. Whatever my mother does or did or thinks or thought has nothing to do with anything. If you think it's relevant, then, I'm 25, which means my mother made the CHOICE to have me. I have to say, that makes me feel a LOT more valuable than if she'd been FORCED to have me.

You say that talking about my rights to do what I want with my body (such as drinking) cheapen the discussion. Fuck that. I am SICK AND FUCKING TIRED of WOMEN'S RIGHTS being pushed aside as though they are irrelevant. THIS IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM with the debate. People like you think that women's autonomy is a side issue. It is not a side issue. It is THE ISSUE.

If you refuse to acknowledge this, a civil conversation cannot be had.

"Am I still their friend? Yes"

Well aren't you magnanimous. How is this relevant?

"I don't think this issue is about control of women"

And this is precisely the problem. You people are willing to dehumanize women in this debate. And yes, I got the part where you said you're a woman. Women can dehumanize themselves, and that's what you're doing.

It is fucking retarded to pretend that this issue has NOTHING to do with women's rights over our bodies. Fucking. Retarded.

No, I'm a man. I suppose that, to you, this means that I shouldn't care so much because this debate doesn't affect my rights. I do get angry when people make disingenuous arguments, however, and that is what you're doing.

Also, don't forget, this very much affects men as well (though obviously in different ways). They don't get a choice in this matter, and sometimes the man wants to keep the baby and cannot; other times, he would choose to abort, but the woman feels differently and his one night of sex turns into an 18 year obligation, financial and otherwise. I'm not suggesting that the choice should be his, only pointing out the reality, something that I know you're uncomfortable with.

"sometimes the man wants to keep the baby and cannot"

He can adopt, same as any woman who wants a kid but is infertile. Or he can find someone who will have a kid with him (which, if he's smart, he'd do anyway).

I'm not saying you can't argue -- but, yeah, this shouldn't make you as mad as you claim it does. What do YOU PERSONALLY stand to lose from this? I stand to lose one fuck of a lot. For you to pretend our interests in this are equal is disingenuous. What about my arguments is disingenuous and why does that make you MAD rather than make you, I dunno, roll your eyes?

I'm not uncomfortable with reality -- that's a ridiculous statement. I think the laws should be changed to allow men to give up all paternity claims and thereby forego financial responsibility. So there you have it -- I'm all about equality.

I think it's pretty clear and at least well-understood among policy makers and other educated folks that the women's rights over their bodies is a central tension in this. anyone who neglects to deal with that issue in an argument over abortion is certainly not a significant or otherwise informed voice in this. that is pretty much indisputable. the catholic choice has pushed the women's issue to the side, and look at where it has gotten them in the abortion dispute...anyone? anyone? irrelevant, insignificant and pretty well worthless when it comes to this.

"You say that talking about my rights to do what I want with my body (such as drinking) cheapen the discussion. Fuck that. I am SICK AND FUCKING TIRED of WOMEN'S RIGHTS being pushed aside as though they are irrelevant. THIS IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM with the debate. People like you think that women's autonomy is a side issue. It is not a side issue. It is THE ISSUE.

If you refuse to acknowledge this, a civil conversation cannot be had."

If you can't have a civil discussion just because someone disagrees with you, thats your problem. Of course women's autonomy is an issue; so, too, is the value of human life. The problem with this debate is people like YOU, on both sides of the aisle. You cannot see this as anything other than an issue of autonomy and womens' rights; staunch pro-lifers cannot see it as anything other than an issue of respect for human life. I actually see that it is both, and can see both sides of the picture. People like me are rational. People like you are not. Case in point: you are screaming at me on a blog's comment section about your right to drink wine while pregnant. Thats irrational, and silly.

Anyway, the comment about your mother may have been unecessary, but it is relevant. You are making it seem like pregnancy is a disease; I am only suggesting that women who have had children, at least in my experience, do not view it that way. Perhaps if you have children one day you will feel differently.

Fooling Yourself - Let me explain to you what's going on. You decry the "disingenous arguments" that you feel don't properly acknowledge the "reality" of an abortion. But pro-choicers do realize that abortion is a very difficult, often very sad, choice. It's not something anybody does lightly, and I can guarantee you that even if a woman feels only relief after the procedure, she still wishes it never had to happen. The vast majority of pro-choicers that acknowledge that.

So pro-choicers get angry in debates when people (especially men) condescendingly tell them they need to "face reality," as if somehow these women are idiots who don't realize that they're ending the life of a potential child (who under other circumstances they might very much want).

Telling a woman to "face reality" is an insult, and it makes a pro-choicer feel like you just want to control her and force her to feel and act a certain way. We don't need you to "point out the reality." We know the reality. Abortion can be a terrible choice, but it's often the best choice. With our backs up against the wall, when that choice is threatened, you'll start hearing things like "it's just a clump of cells." I suggest you ignore those sorts of statements and focus on the real issues, rather than trying to get women to admit what they obviously know -- it's a clump of cells that might have become a person.

"I think the laws should be changed to allow men to give up all paternity claims and thereby forego financial responsibility. So there you have it -- I'm all about equality."

Well, at least you're consistent. BTW, I never said that men and women have equal stakes in this argument, that would be ridiculous. I was only pointing out that we have some stake because you seemed to be saying that men shouldn't really care because this doesn't affect their rights.

Finally, I get annoyed when people make ridiculous arguments, as you did, which I already explained. You are entitled to your opinion that women should have full autonomy over the choice whether to carry a pregnancy to term; you're not entitled to your opinion that outlawing abortion will lead to legislating every activity a pregnant woman undertakes. Because thats stupid.

"Perhaps if you have children one day you will feel differently."

Fooling, this is an ad hominem attack. My status as a mother or non-mother is not the issue here. For someone so "rational" you're awfully willing to bring my uterus and vagina into the discussion.

This might totally SHOCK you, but I "get" the "human life" arguments. Obviously the fetus is some kind of life. I don't think it's human in the same way a grown adult woman is human, but it is something human-like. I get that there are plenty of women who feel an embryo/fetus/zygote is a real and legitimate "baby" and that's FINE. I go to baby showers. I am happy for my friends who become pregnant on purpose. I'm ALL ABOUT women's choice, including the choice to have children.

The problem is not that I don't acknowledge the "life" arguments. The problem is when people like you and others here pretend that's the end of the story. When you trivialize the issue, as though my right to drink wine is less important than a man's, you dehumanize women. That is a fucking insult, and it fucking pisses me off.

That doesn't make me irrational. It makes me human. And as a human, I HAVE RIGHTS. Pro-lifers need to acknowledge this, and they don't.

Fooling - one last thing, then I really have to do some work. You wrote that "You are making it seem like pregnancy is a disease; I am only suggesting that women who have had children, at least in my experience, do not view it that way. Perhaps if you have children one day you will feel differently."

That's terribly condescending. If you really want to understand this debate, you need to do some reading on the things women can suffer during childbirth and have suffered historically. Read Nicholas Kristoff's series on obstetrical fistulas in Africa. Read about pregnant women who get severe nausea for months (so severe they can't stop puking to eat or drink and have to be hospitalized). Read about women who almost die from preeclampsia.

For that matter, just spend some time with a woman with a normal pregnancy in her 9th month. She may not say it, but you can tell her physical discomfort is significant.

Pregnancy may usually turn out ok in this country, but it's a serious medical matter.

"you're not entitled to your opinion that outlawing abortion will lead to legislating every activity a pregnant woman undertakes. Because thats stupid."

Okay, THIS is stupid.

First off, even if my opinion were stupid (it's not), I'm still entitled to it. Stupid people have rights too. Stupid men have more rights than smart women in some cases. Fucked up, huh?

Second, it isn't a stupid argument. I gave you examples of what some of the crazies out there are willing to do. Maybe you skimmed over the part about the cancer vaccine. Here it is again: THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO LIMIT ACCESS TO A CANCER VACCINE BECAUSE IT MIGHT LEAD WOMEN TO HAVE SEX.

AGAIN, Fooling, maybe YOU are not a crazy anti-woman type. But don't be so ignorant as to convince yourself that they don't exist. They do exist. Some asshole in this thread even opined that the world would be better if we tied women to beds and used them as baby incubators. There are FUCKED UP people in the world and a lot of them LURVE our current president.

Don't tell me it's stupid to worry that the crazies will control my body. Since someone already called me a Nazi, I think I'm entitled to use the Nazi argument once, so I will: I'm sure there were decent Germans who sat around as Hitler rose to power thinking, "oh come on. Genocide of the Jews? That would never happen. That's stupid. Stop being so alarmist."

Wordstar--I hear you, but remember, I was responding to comments (not necessarily by you, don't remember) that called a fetus a parasite or a growth, compared pregnancy to an illness, etc etc. I think people go too far in trying to make these kinds of comparisons. Assuming you're right, and all women really do view abortion the way you describe, wonderful, I think that's an appropriate way for it to be viewed.

As for you, Anonymous, I give up. You have a right to drink wine that is just as important as a man's right to drink wine. Perhaps we should add that to the Bill of Rights.

"As for you, Anonymous, I give up. You have a right to drink wine that is just as important as a man's right to drink wine. Perhaps we should add that to the Bill of Rights."

It's called the Equal Rights Amendment. I'm all for it.

"Obviously the fetus is some kind of life. I don't think it's human in the same way a grown adult woman is human, but it is something human-like. I get that there are plenty of women who feel an embryo/fetus/zygote is a real and legitimate "baby" and that's FINE. I go to baby showers. I am happy for my friends who become pregnant on purpose. I'm ALL ABOUT women's choice, including the choice to have children."

Good, that's the first step: recognizing that the fetus is some kind of life. The question is then, what kind of life should we have the ability to kill? Hopefully we can agree that newborns are a kind of life that no one should be able to kill, even if the mother doesn't want the newborn. Similarly, I would argue that premature babies are a kind of life no one should be able to kill, even if the mother doesn't want the premature baby.

My position is that one shouldn't be able to kill a premature baby because it is fully and completely a human life, and because it is human, it has human rights, including the right not to be killed.

Also, since I see that a 24-week premature baby is fully and completely a human life, I can see no principled reason for distinguishing between it and a 26-week old fetus. Thus, I don't think that one should be able to kill a 26-week old fetus regardless if the mother doesn't want it, because the 26-week fetus is just as much a human life (with attached human rights) as the 24-week premature baby.

I think some people need to research pregnancy and childbirth. A pregnant woman is not a medical emergency waiting to happen.

Obstetric fistulas are not normal and are the result of 12 year old girls, often circumcised, giving birth without medical supervision.

Most people don't develop preeclampsia, let alone almost die. Most people do not develop hyperemesis so severe that they are hospitalized. Yes pregnancy has potential health implications, but a normal pregnancy by itself is not a true medical event.

The normal pregnancy can progress with little to no medical interference. Yes, prenatal care is probably a good idea to make sure that one does in fact have a normal pregnancy. But prenatal care consists of getting weighed, peeing in a cup, and listening to a heartbeat. Hardly the stuff of medical drama shows. Even childbirth can safely take place without any medical personnel (unassisted childbirth exists). You don't need an MD to catch a baby either. Feminist pregnant women are strongly opposed to the view of pregnancy as anything but a normal, healthy state and typically prefer Midwives over OBs for this reason.

Anyway, this is a bit of a tangent, but treating pregnancy as some awful disease does an extreme disservice to women in general and goes to support the view that pregnant women are somehow weak and incapable of normal thought and activity. It all goes to support the notion that in order for a woman to be successful and autonomous she should avoid or be afraid of pregnancy and motherhood.

4:02, again, I see all these points. I "get" it. And I agree it's really tough to make bright line rules, on ANY side of the issue.

However, I do think the status of the fetus is a little bit irrelevant. That does NOT mean I don't think we should value life -- but rather, even if we agree for the purposes of argument that a fetus is a full human being for the purposes of legal rights, that STILL does not trump a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

Someone else here brought up the issue of organ donation, which is a great example. The action/inaction distinction really isn't a good one, because it's not the point of the analogy. The point is that even if someone's LIFE depends on your giving up some measure of bodily integrity, you still have the right to bodily integrity, PERIOD. We could even take it a step further -- we'll assume medical science is such that these next two examples are possible.

If someone steals my kidney, I have the legal right to get it back and put it back inside my body (again, making assumptions about the state of medicine). It's MY KIDNEY. Let's say they've already opened up the recipient and are ready to start giving her the kidney. If she doesn't get the kidney right now, she will die on the table. Right then and there. Dead. I STILL have the right to demand my kidney back. It might make me a heartless asshole, but the law lets us be heartless assholes.

Or let's say there were some way to hook people up with one another such that one person was providing total life support for another. The two of you are attached with tubes and machines and weird stuff, but we'll assume it's in such a way that you could still move around, you'd just be very uncomfortable, and you'd have certain restrictions on your movement, and you'd be tired and nauseous all the time because another person is just sitting there FEEDING ON YOU. Another whole human person, depending completely on you. Guess what? You have NO OBLIGATION to keep that person alive. Even if you were stupid and got drunk and that's the only reason someone was able to get you hooked up and attached to this other person. If you unattach yourself from this person, the person will die, period. There is no way for this person to live now, unless you continue to support him/her. You STILL have NO OBLIGATION to support this person, even though he or she is a full human being with all the rights of personhood.

That's why I say that THE ISSUE is women's bodily autonomy. I am not required to give my body up to keep another person alive. PERIOD.

"The action/inaction distinction really isn't a good one, because it's not the point of the analogy."

I posed the action/inaction distinction. I don't remember which post. Anyway... I GET the point of the analogy. However, I do not think the analogy is fitting because there is a fundamental distinction between organ donation and pregnancy.

Organ donation/being hooked up to someone through artificial means requires an affirmative step to save a life.

Pregnancy requires no affirmative step to save a life.

A better analogy is the case of the siamese twins - if the twins are separated one twin will die. Can the "stronger" twin who bears most of the important blood vessels choose to undergo separation surgery knowing that his twin would certainly die as a result? Medical ethics says that the separation surgery should not be performed. It is better to allow both twins to live, even if the sacrafice of one twin may give the other twin a better quality of life. Inaction produces life for both. Action causes the death of one.

"Pregnancy requires no affirmative step to save a life."

Of course it does (and by the way, it's not to "save" a life, it's to bring a life into the autonomous world). If the woman sits around and does NOTHING (inaction), the baby dies. She does, too, but the point is, a successful pregnancy DOES require action. If the fetus is going to enter the world as a baby, the woman has to take action and give birth. Abortion just requires a DIFFERENT action.

"Medical ethics says that the separation surgery should not be performed. It is better to allow both twins to live, even if the sacrafice of one twin may give the other twin a better quality of life."

Oh? Cite the medical ethicists you're referring to, please.

"Another whole human person, depending completely on you. Guess what? You have NO OBLIGATION to keep that person alive."

That's not always true. Take the mother with an infant. The infant depends completely on the mother for life. Can the mother simply leave the infant in a nearby trashcan? I don't think so. The mother has some kind of obligation to the infant. The mother cannot exercise full autonomy free from the infant... if she does, and the infant gets hurt from being left alone in a trashcan to die, the mother can be found guilty under the law for child neglect or worse (manslaughter perhaps?).

"If the woman sits around and does NOTHING (inaction), the baby dies. She does, too, but the point is, a successful pregnancy DOES require action. If the fetus is going to enter the world as a baby, the woman has to take action and give birth. Abortion just requires a DIFFERENT action."

Yeah, I guess it requires the woman to eat and drink. Look, you can argue that the action/inaction distinction is unimportant, but it is indisputable that the distinction exists. Abortion f*cks with the natural order of things. You can't really argue with that point. When you do, you just make yourself look silly.

"Abortion f*cks with the natural order of things."

"natural order"?

Whoops, sorry to contradict you, GOD.

lol. You do know a miscarriage is technically an abortion, right?

"That's not always true. Take the mother with an infant. The infant depends completely on the mother for life."

With all respect, 4:47, you're completely ignoring the context of my comment. Reliance on another person is one thing. Reliance on another person's PHYSICAL BODY for life support is another entirely.

Seriously, you're going to argue with that? You think that statement means I think that I'm God? Abortion (the kind induced purposely by man--happy now?) is the act of ending a pregnancy before it would have ended naturally. How does that not f*ck with the natural order? Of course it does, the very definition is to terminate the pregnancy although it would likely have continued if left alone. This is not, without more, reason to prohibit it, but are you really telling me that what I said is untrue?

What the hell is this "natural order" bullshit? You're centimeters from saying women's "natural" place is in the home. What makes having babies "natural"?? Just because YOU say it's natural? Because lots of people do it? What the fuck is up with "natural" and why does it matter if something's "natural"???

THAT'S what I take issue with. Jeeezus.

This is my last post because I think you're one centimeter away from crazy. As I am using the term, "natural order" means the way things naturally develop without human intervention. When a woman becomes pregnant, the "natural" outcome is that she carries to term and gives birth. Not every single time, mind you, because things do go wrong. But that is where things are leading, unless something does go wrong, or unless man intervenes by way of abortion. In the same way, the "natural" outcome of sex is pregnancy (although, obviously, not every time). Birth control, then, also screws with the natural order of things, i.e., that sex leads to pregnancy. I have not suggested that this alone makes these things objectionable. But saying that the natural outcome of childbirth is pregnancy is hardly controversial. I'm actually at a loss as to why you think this is somehow objectionable. I never said that women are, by nature, meant to rear children, or anything similar. I only took issue with the suggestion that continuing with a pregnancy and ggiving birth is somehow an affirmative act on par with donating an organ. Its not.

"Reliance on another person's PHYSICAL BODY for life support is another entirely."

Sorry, but I don't see the distinction. Another human being is reliant on another person for life in both cases.

"But saying that the natural outcome of childbirth is pregnancy is hardly controversial."

That would be controversial, unless you switch childbirth and pregnancy. :)

5:14, good riddance.

Clarence Thomas plans to prevent free and fair elections in Nigeria.

I am pregnant i am 4 moths